Miller v. Industrial Commission

Decision Date05 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. 34411,34411
Citation138 N.E.2d 672,165 Ohio St. 584
Parties, 60 O.O. 522 MILLER, a Minor, Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The words, 'child or children,' used in Section 1465-82, General Code (Section 4123.59, Revised Code), are to be construed in their usual and ordinary sense and apply only to legitimate children, adopted children and illegitimate children who have been legitimatized in a manner provided by statute. (Staker, Gdn., v. Industrial Commission, 127 Ohio St. 13, approved and followed.)

2. An illegitimate child who has not been legitimatized in a manner provided by statute is not a dependent child within the purview of Section 1465-82, General Code (Section 4123.59, Revised Code), so as to be entitled to benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Some seven months after his birth in 1936 plaintiff's mother, Hestine Mobley, died, and two months thereafter he was taken to the home of Tie P. Miller and his wife, where he lived until the death of Mrs. Miller in 1944. After the death of Mrs. Miller plaintiff was taken to the home of one Queen Esther Robison, where he lived and was supported by Tie P. Miller until the latter's death.

This cause arose upon the filing of a claim for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the plaintiff on the ground that he was a dependent child of Tie P. Miller who was killed in a mine accident. The Industrial Commission disallowed the claim on the ground taht plaintiff was not a dependent of the deceased workman at the time of his death.

An action was then brought in the Court of Common Pleas which found for defendant commission. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment was reversed on the weight of the evidence and final judgment was rendered for plaintiff; and this court in Miller v. Industrial Commission, 158 Ohio St. 551, 110 N.E.2d 481, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the cause to that court for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals then reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on the weight of the evidence and remanded the cause for a new trial. Upon the second trial judgment was again rendered for defendant, and again upon appeal the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Paul Tague, Jr., and James M. Videan, Columbus, for appellant.

L.P. Henderson, Columbus, for appellee.

MATTHIAS, Judge.

An examination of the record in this case discloses that plaintiff is conceded to be an illegitimate child; the only controversy in the courts below being whether the deceased workman was the father of the plaintiff.

Although various questions in relation to the instructions of the trial court and as to the withdrawal of an interrogatory submitted to the jury are raised by the parties, none of them need be considered in the disposition of this case.

This court in the syllabus of Staker v. Industrial Commission, 127 Ohio St. 13, 186 N.E. 616, held:

'1. An illegitimate, posthumous child, unacknowledged by its putative father, is not a dependent child, within the purview of Section 1465-82, General Code.

'2. The word 'child,' used in that section, is to be construed in its usual and ordinary sense, and applies to legitimate children and to children legally adopted prior to the employee's injury.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 10503-15, General Code, Section 2105.18, Revised Code, states in part:

'When, by a woman a man has one or more children, and afterward intermarries with her, such issue, if acknowledged by him as his child or children, will be legitimate. The issue of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Butcher v. Pollard
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1972
    ...(codified as G.C. 1655). The court limited the statute's reach to only the neglect of legitimate children.23 Miller v. Indus. Comm'n (1956), 165 Ohio St. 584, 138 N.E.2d 672, interpreting 'child' in R.C. 4123.59 to mean legitimate children. This statute schedules the payment of benefits to ......
  • Green v. Woodard
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1974
    ...intent on the part of the legislature, the word 'child' or 'children' means legitimate children. See Miller v. Industrial Commission (1956), 165 Ohio St. 584, 138 N.E.2d 672; Staker Guardian v. Industrial Commission (1933), 127 Ohio St. 13, 186 N.E. 616; Creisar v. State (1917), 97 Ohio St.......
  • Zelenka v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1956
  • Hunt v. U.S. Steel Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1963
    ...v. Tillery, 155 Ala. 495, 46 So. 582. See Murrell v. Industrial Commission, 291 Ill. 334, 126 N.E. 189; Miller v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 165 Ohio St. 584, 138 N.E.2d 672. There are cases from other jurisdictions, including Portin v. Portin, 149 Tenn. 530, 261 S.W. 362, cited and rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT